Journal of Innovation in Psychology, [617699]

Journal of Innovation in Psychology,
Education and Didactics Vol. 20, No. 2
2016 135 – 148

INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS FOR TEACHING AND
LEARNING SCIENCE: ASCERTAINED RESEARCH
LILIANA MÂ ȚĂ *a, GABRIEL LAZ ĂR a, IULIANA LAZ ĂR a
a "Vasile Alecsandri" University of Bac ău, Romania
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to analyze of latest r esearch focused on the investigation of interactive
whiteboards used in teaching and learning Science. In the theoretical framework the main objectives ar e:
a) the identification of specific research regardin g the integration of interactive whiteboards in tea ching
and learning Science and b) the elaboration of an i nnovative model based on defining the criteria of
classification of the research directions in this f ield. In order to achieve the aim of the study, an
ascertained research is employed. The empirical bas is of the study consists of content analysis of cur rent
research at international level in connection with the components of the innovative model defined in t he
theoretical part . The findings reveal the current context of educatio nal research focused on integrating
interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning Sc ience, as a starting point for the implementation o f an
innovative project in Romanian higher education.
Key words : educational research, higher education, learning, teaching, whiteboard

Introduction
Using computer-based technology such as data-loggin g and simulations is important for modeling
subjects such as Science. The presence of computer- based technology (Shih, Huang, Hsu, &
Chen, 2012)changes the way subjects such as Science are being taught. There is growing
evidence that information and communication technol ogies have a positive effect on student’s
attainment in science (Van Veen, 2011). Especially with abstract concept lessons like Science, the
usage of educational technologies and materials is very crucial (Akçay, Feyzio ğlu, & Tüysüz,
2003; Serin, Bulut, & Saygili, 2009). Educational t echnologies and materials, which offer
additional opportunities for learning and putting f orward what you know, provides different

* Corresponding Author: Assoc. Prof. Liliana Mâ ță
E-mail address : [anonimizat]

L. Mâ ță , G. Laz ăr, I. Laz ăr/ Journal of Innovation in Psychology, Education and Didactics

136 learning environments and maintains permanent and i nteractive learning. Teachers will
incorporate in Science lesson a specific set of kno wledge, abilities and values in three different
domains of technology, pedagogy and science.
The interactive whiteboard (IWB) is part of informa tion and communication technologies(ICT)
enhanced learning and teaching Science and is able to combine a lot of beneficial features of ICT
in one medium. Isman et al. (2012) consider that in teractive whiteboard is “a large touch-sensitive
and interactive display that connects to a computer and projector”. According to Higgins,
Beauchamp, and Miller (S. Higgins, Beauchamp, & Mil ler, 2007), “the use of IWB may be the
most significant change in the classroom learning e nvironment in the past decade”. Kennewell
and Beauchamp (Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2007) describ e lessons with IWB, which give a more
visual and dynamic look, resulting in the fact that students spent longer looking at the board
rather than the teacher. They describe teachers als o showing projected graphs and tables which
are particularly common in science work. Many stude nts encountered numerous difficulties in
learning Science and it was the subject which stude nts felt most anxious and afraid. The use of
IWB in the classroom can make a difference for stud ents who have trouble with thinking
abstractly in abstract subjects, because it makes t he teaching/ learning process more concrete,
when using the features of the IWB (Bui, 2009).
Within the context of using the interactive whitebo ard in the teaching and learning of Science,
many surveys emphasize the effectiveness of using t his technology toolto improve students’
capacities and teachers’ professional development. Due to the increasing body of research that is
emerging from the implementation of IWBs in learnin g and teaching science, analysis has been
necessary to summarize and identify general trends. Smith et al. (H. Smith, Higgins, Wall, &
Miller, 2005) consider there are two main categorie s of research which have emerged from theirs
study of the reference literature: “the IWB as a to ol to enhance teaching and as a tool to support
learning”. The authors identified in the literatur e the potential benefits of IWBs for teaching:
flexibility and versatility, multimedia/multimodal presentation, efficiency, supporting planning
and the development of resources, modeling informat ion and communication technologies skills,
interactivity and lesson participation. Also, they find the unique features of IWBs relate to the
promotion of pupils’ learning and falls into the fo llowing categories: motivation and affect and
multimedia and multi-sensory presentation.
There are identified two categories of specific app roaches regarding the integrations of interactive
whiteboards in teaching and learning Science accord ing to the general reference literature.
a. The IWB as a tool to support learning Science

L. Mâ ță , G. Laz ăr, I. Laz ăr/ Journal of Innovation in Psychology, Education and Didactics

137 The studies are based on establishing the correlati on between using interactive whiteboards and
different factors of learning Science:
– learning outcomes, achievement, performance(Akba ș & Pekta ș, 2011; BECTA, 2002; Dhindsa
& Emran, 2006; Huang, Liu, Yan, & Chen, 2009; Hwang , Chen, & Hsu, 2006; Laz ăr, Mâ ță ,
Ifrim, Mateian, & Laz ăr, 2013; Murcia, 2010; Somekh, Haldane, & Jones, 20 07; Swan,
Kratcoski, Schenker, & Hooft, 2010; Thompson & Flec knoe, 2003; Van Lankvelt, 2009; Van
Veen, 2011; Veselinovska, 2014; Yang & Wang, 2012);
– gender differences in learning Science(Dhindsa & Emran, 2011; Emron & Dhindsa, 2010);
– motivation, engagement and interaction, participa tion and attitudes of students in Science
learning process(Huang, et al., 2009; Kershner, Mer cer, Warwick, & Staarman, 2010; Mercer,
Warwick, Kershner, & Staarman, 2010; Schut, 2007; S ingh & Mohamed, 2012; Stoica, Jipa,
Miron, Ferener-Vari, & Toma, 2014; Torff & Tirotta, 2010; Van Lankvelt, 2009; Vetter, 2009).
b. The IWB as a tool to enhance teaching Science
The studies are focused on identifying the correlat ion between using interactive whiteboards and
different factors of teaching Science:
– the pedagogical implications and outcomes of the use of interactive whiteboards(Campbell &
Martin, 2010; Gadbois & Haverstock, 2009; Gillen, L ittleton, Twiner, Staarman, & Mercer, 2008;
Glover, Miller, & Averis, 2003; S. Higgins, E., 201 0; Miller, Averis, Door, & Glover, 2005;
Veselinovska, 2014);
– the perceptions of pre-service and in-service tea chers of interactive whiteboard training and its
usefulness in teaching science(Emron & Dhindsa, 201 0; Jang & Tsai, 2012; Wong, Goh, &
Osman, 2013);
– the impact on teacher-pupil interaction (F. Smith , Hardman, & Higgins, 2006; Warwick,
Mercer, Kershner, & Kleine Staarman, 2010);
– the use of interactive whiteboards to develop the Technological Pedagogical Content and
Knowledge of teachers(Jang, 2010; Jang & Tsai, 2012 );
– the motivational effects of using interactive whi teboards in classrooms (Miller, Glover, &
Averis, 2004);
– the use of interactive pedagogies in the IWB clas sroom to support whole class substantive
discourse about science (Murcia & Sheffield, 2010).

L. Mâ ță , G. Laz ăr, I. Laz ăr/ Journal of Innovation in Psychology, Education and Didactics

138 In the Romanian educational system, there are neith er theoretical models nor researches, or
programs aimed at developing educational solutions for integrating interactive whiteboards in
teaching and learning Science in higher education. There are few studies based on the
presentation of good practices on integrating inter active whiteboards in teaching science. Stoica et
al. (2011) present the way in which teachers can pr omote an interactive learning and stimulate
students’ creative potential, by using the interact ive whiteboard and the cognitive load theory in
teaching Physics.
The two categories of identified specific approache s will provide the reference framework for the
content analysis of ascertained research.

Method
The objective of the present study consists of the analysis of researches focused on the use of
interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning Sc ience.
There are verified two general investigation hypoth eses.
Hypothesis 1: The researches focused on the use of interactive whiteboards in teaching and
learning Science reflect the specific themes, in re lation with the disciplines, in a different manner.
Hypothesis 2: The researches focused on the use of interactive whiteboards in teaching and
learning Science reflect the specific themes, in re lation with the educational level, in a different
manner.
In the content analysis of the research focused on the use of interactive whiteboards in teaching
and learning Science were integrated the two catego ries, corresponding to specific approaches
identified in the theoretical part: a. The IWB as a tool to support learning Science, with the
following components: cognitive development, engage ment, behavior, engagement level,
attitudes, creative potential, cultural aspects); a nd b. The IWB as a tool to enhance teaching
Science, with the following components: knowledge, pedagogical support, engagement, socio-
cultural aspects, technological aspects.
To identify categories, corresponding to specific a pproaches regarding the integrations of
interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning Sc ience the content analysis was used to
distinguish the specific themes which correspond to every indicator. The content analysis aims at
the quantitative analysis of the documents, intendi ng to highlight themes, trends, attitudes, values
and patterns using as a mechanism the conversion of a symbolic qualitative material into a
quantitative one. The study values the variants of the thematic analysis(Bardin, 1977): categorical

L. Mâ ță , G. Laz ăr, I. Laz ăr/ Journal of Innovation in Psychology, Education and Didactics

139 analysis, which is based on grouping themes into ca tegories and calculating frequencies.The
content analysis method provides a set of advantage s: it enables quantitative and qualitative
operations; enables statistical analysis of coded f orm of the text; it is a means to analyze
interactions; it provides a deep knowledge of compl ex patterns of thought and language
use(Agabrian, 2006). The value of an analysis depen ds on the quality of prior conceptualization
(hypothesis, variables), of the analysis scheme or categories, of the concordance between the
investigated reality and the ideal conceptual eleme nts. The content analysis is a research method
appropriate to explore studies in educational scien ces, as it can be seen in some studies (Gökta ș et
al., 2012; Saban, 2009). The thematic content analy sis is applied for the research data
analysis(Vaismoradi, Turunen, & Bondas, 2013)to est ablish general themes and specific
categories related to the research which aims at IW B use in teaching and learning science.
The content analysis was performed between July and September 2014. There were selected and
analyzed the specific research focused on the use o f interactive whiteboards in teaching and
learning Science achieved in the last ten years (20 01-2014).
The dependent variable is represented by the catego ries of indicators, while the independent
variables are: subjects (Mathematics, Biology, Chem istry, Physics, Science) and educational level
(primary school, secondary school, high schools, hi gher education).It must be specified that in
primary education therepresentative subjects are Ma thematics and Science, compared to
secondary education, high school and higher educati on, where the distinct subjects
areMathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Science.

Findings
Hypothesis 1 is confirmed, because the researches focused on th e use of interactive whiteboards
in teaching and learning Science reflect the specif ic themes, in relation with the disciplines, in a
different manner. To verify this hypothesis, the fr equency of the specifications differentiated on
disciplines was analyzed for each category of speci fic themes.
There are differences regarding the categories of f actors that facilitate the integration of IWB of
learning and teaching Science, as it can be seen fr om Table 1and Figure 1:
• From the point of view of learning Sciences , the frequencies illustrate that most research are
conducted more to highlight the positive effect in using the IWB to facilitate the cognitive
development (17) rather than to stimulate the creat ive potential, the learning styles (1), to
identify the importance of cultural aspects (1), or to identify the attitudes of students (2).

L. Mâ ță , G. Laz ăr, I. Laz ăr/ Journal of Innovation in Psychology, Education and Didactics

140 • From the perspective of teaching Sciences , the frequencies highlight that most research are
achieved more to investigate the role of IWB as ped agogical support (10) rather than as an
instrument of cognitive development (4) or the infl uence of integration of IWB upon
engagement, social relations (3) or teachers’ attit udes, perceptions, representations upon new
technologies (2).

Table 1 . Categories and specific themes at the level of re search focused on the use of IWB in
teaching and learning Science, differentiated on di sciplines (M – Mathematics, B – Biology, C –
Chemistry, P – Physics, S – Science)

Categories and specific themes The frequency of the
specifications
Total
M B C P S
a. The IWB as a
tool to support
learning Science a.1. cognitive development
(achievement, performance) 8 2 1 1 5 17
a.2. engagement (motivation,
interest, concentration, self-
esteem) 2 – – – 1 3
a.3. attitudes, perceptions,
representations – 1 – 1 – 2
a.4. behavior (interaction,
participation, collaborative
communication) – – – – 4 4
a.5. creative potential – – – 1 – 1
a.6. cultural aspects (gender
differences) – – 1 – – 1
a.7. learning styles – – – – 1 1
Total 10 3 2 3 11 29
b. The IWB as a
tool to enhance
teaching Science b.1. knowledge development 2 – – – 2 4
b.2. pedagogical support
(planning and preparation,
assessment, teaching style) 2 1 1 – 6 10
b.3. engagement (motivation,
classroom focus, interactivity) 1 – 1 – 1 3
b.4. social aspects (social
interaction, working together) 1 – 1 – 1 3
b.5. technological aspects (ICT
skills) – – 1 – – 1
b.6. attitudes, perceptions,
representations – – – – 2 2
Total 6 1 4 0 12 23

L. Mâ ță , G. Laz ăr, I. Laz ăr/ Journal of Innovation in Psychology, Education and Didactics

141

a b
Figure 1 . Graphic representation of frequency of the specif ic themes, differentiated on the two
categories: learning (a) and teaching (b)

There are significant differences related to the in tegration of IWB in learning and teaching
Science disciplines, as it can be seen from Table 1 and Figure 2:
• From the point of view of learning Sciences , the frequencies illustrate that most research are
conducted to highlight the positive effect in using the IWB at Science (11) and Mathematics
(10), comparatively to Biology (3), Physics (3) and Chemistry (2).
• From the perspective of teaching Sciences , the frequencies highlight that most research are
achieved to investigate the way of IWB integration at Science (12), comparatively to
Mathematic (6), Chemistry (4), Biology (1) and Phys ics (0).

a b
Figure 2 . Graphic representation of frequency of the catego ries of themes, differentiated on
disciplines: learning (a) and teaching (b)

L. Mâ ță , G. Laz ăr, I. Laz ăr/ Journal of Innovation in Psychology, Education and Didactics

142 Hypothesis 2 is confirmed, because the researches focused on th e use of interactive whiteboards
in teaching and learning Science reflect the specif ic themes, in relation with the educational level,
in a different manner. To verify this hypothesis, t he frequency of the specifications differentiated
on the educational level was analyzed for each cate gory of specific themes.
There are significant differences related to the in tegration of IWB in learning and teaching
Science in function with the educational level, as it can be seen from Table 2and Figure 3:
• From the point of view of learning Sciences , the frequencies illustrate that most research are
conducted to highlight the positive effect in using the IWB in secondary education (11) and
primary education (10), comparatively to high schoo l (5) and higher education (3).
• From the perspective of teaching Sciences , the frequencies highlights that most research are
achieved to investigate the way of IWB integration in secondary education (12) and primary
education (7), comparatively to higher education (2 ), high school (1) and pre-primary
education (1).

Table 2. Categories and specific themes at the level of res earch focused on the use of IWB in
teaching and learning Science, differentiated on ed ucational system levels (PP – pre-primary
education; PE – primary education, SE – secondary e ducation, HS – high school, HE – higher education)

Categories and specificthemes The frequency of the specifications
Total PP PE SE HS HE
a. The IWB as a
tool to support
learning Science a.1. cognitive development (achievement,
performance) – 5 6 3 3 17
a.2. engagement (motivation, interest,
concentration, self-esteem) – 2 1 3
a.3. attitudes, perceptions, representations – 1 1 2
a.4. behavior (interaction, participation,
collaborative communication) – 3 1 4
a.5. creative potential – 1 1
a.6. cultural aspects (gender differences) – 1 1
a.7. learning styles – 1 1
Total 0 10 11 5 3 29
b. The IWB as a
tool to enhance
teaching Science b.1. knowledge development 2 2 4
b.2. pedagogical support (planning and
preparation, assessment, teaching style) 1 2 4 1 2 10
b.3. engagement (motivation, classroom
focus, interactivity) 1 2 3
b.4. social aspects (social interaction,
working together) 1 2 3
b.5. technological aspects (ICT skills) 1 1
b.6. attitudes, perceptions, representations 1 1 2
Total 1 7 12 1 2 23

L. Mâ ță , G. Laz ăr, I. Laz ăr/ Journal of Innovation in Psychology, Education and Didactics

143

a b
Figure 3 . Graphic representation of frequency of the catego ries of themes, differentiated on
educational level: learning (a) and teaching (b)

Discussions and conclusions
The conclusions can be formulated at both theoretic al level and in terms of current ascertained
research in the field of using interactive whiteboa rds for teaching and learning Science. At the
theoretical level, there are identified two categor ies of specific approaches in connection with
reference literature: the IWB as a tool to support learning Science and the IWB as a tool to
enhance teaching Science.
After analyzing the results of the statistical data , the following specific conclusions can be stated.
a) The most research regarding the effects of using interactive whiteboards upon students learning
is conducted in Mathematics and science subjects an d lesson the subjects Physics and Chemistry.
From the perspective of the impact of new technolog ies in the teaching process, the results are
very similar, in the sense that most studies are ac hieved in science and Mathematics disciplines,
the fewest in Chemistry discipline and none in Phys ics. Hayes (2010)noticed that research is
significantly lacking on IWB use in continued emplo yee professional development and training.
b) Referring to the educational level, research has been predominantly conducted to find effects
of this medium on students in secondary and primary schools. To this date the researcher was not
able to find research on the effects of using IWB i n science teaching in higher education.
Further research is needed to understand how this n ew technology affects student learning and
teaching Science at the level of all categories of factors. The results obtained will constitute the

L. Mâ ță , G. Laz ăr, I. Laz ăr/ Journal of Innovation in Psychology, Education and Didactics

144 point of starting to investigate the positive effec ts of IWB integration for learning and teaching
Science in Romanian higher education.

Acknowledgements
This research was financially supported by the Exec utive Unit for Financing Higher Education,
Research, Development and Innovation (Grant PN-II-P T-PCCA-2011-3.2-1108, ‘Networked
interactive ceramic whiteboards with integrated sou nd (ENO) for teaching and learning science
and technology’).

References
Agabrian, M. (2006). Analiza de con ținut – The content analysis . Iasi: Polirom.
Akba ș, O., & Pekta ș, H., M. (2011). The effects of using an interactiv e whiteboard on the academic
achievement of university students. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching , 12 (2).
Akçay, H., Feyzio ğlu, B., & Tüysüz, C. (2003). The Effects of Compute r Simulations on Students’ Success
and Attidues in teaching Chemistry. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 3 (1), 20-26.
Bardin, L. (1977). Paris: P.U.F.
BECTA. (2002). ImpaCT2: The Impact of Information and Communicatio n Technologies on Pupil
Learning and Attainment . Coventry, England.
Bui, V. (2009). Interactive Whiteboards Impact on Education . Los Angeles: California State University.
Campbell, C., & Martin, D. (2010). Interactive Whit eboards and the First Year Experience: Integrating
IWBs into Pre-service Teacher Education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35 (6), A5.
Dhindsa, H., S., & Emran, S. (2006). Use of the int eractive whiteboard in constructivist teaching for higher
student achievement. Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference for the Middle East Teachers of
Science, Mathematics, and Computing , 175-188.
Dhindsa, H., S., & Emran, S. (2011). Using interact ive whiteboard technology-rich constructivist learn ing
environment to minimize gender differences in chemi stry achievement. International Journal of
Environmental & Science Education, 6 (4), 393-414.
Emron, S., & Dhindsa, H., S. (2010). Integration of interactive whiteboard technology to improve
secondary science teaching and learning. International Journal for Research in Education (IJ RE),
28 (A10).

L. Mâ ță , G. Laz ăr, I. Laz ăr/ Journal of Innovation in Psychology, Education and Didactics

145 Gadbois, S., & Haverstock, N. (2009). Using SMART Board Technology to Teach Grade 6 Scien ce:
Teachers’ Experiences with and Perceptions of Its U se . Paper presented at the Manitoba Education
Research Network (MERN) Research Forum on Science, Mathematics, Technology, Teaching and
Learning, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Gillen, J., Littleton, K., Twiner, A., Staarman, J. , K., & Mercer, N. (2008). Using the interactive wh iteboard
to resource continuity and support multimodal teach ing in a primary science classroom. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 24 (4), 348–358.
Glover, D., Miller, D., & Averis, D. (2003, Septemb er 2003). The impact of interactive whiteboards on
classroom practice: examples drawn from the teachin g of mathematics in secondary schools in
England. Paper presented at the The Mathematics Education i nto the 21st Century Project Proceedings
of the International Conference the Decidable and t he Undecidable in Mathematics Education Brno,
Czech Republic.
Gökta ș, Y., Arpacik, O., Yildirim, G., Aydemir, M., Küçük , S., Telli, E., & Reiso ğlu, I. (2012). Educational
Technology Research Trends in Turkey: A Content Ana lysis of the 2000-2009 Decade. Educational
Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12 (1), 191-196.
Hayes, T. L. (2010). Interactive Whiteboards for Teacher Training: A Lit erature Review . Hawaii:
University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Re viewing the literature on interactive whiteboards.
Learning, Media, & Technology, 32 (3), 213-225.
Higgins, S., E. (2010). The impact of interactive w hiteboards on classroom interaction and learning in
primary schools in the UK. In E. C. S. M. Thomas (E d.), Interactive whiteboards for education:
theory, research and practice (pp. 86-101). Hershey: Pa: IGI Global.
Huang, T., H., Liu, Y., C., Yan, W., T., & Chen, Y. , C. (2009, December 3-4). Using the innovative
cooperative learning model with the interactive whi teboard to primary school students' mathematical
class: statistic vs. pie chart and solid diagram. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th
International LAMS and Learning Design Conference: opening up learning design, Sydney.
Hwang, W., Y., Chen, N., S., & Hsu, R., L. (2006). Development and evaluation of multimedia whiteboard
system for improving mathematical problem solving. Computers & Education, 46 (2), 105–121.
Isman, A., Abanmy, F., A., Hussein, H., B., & Al Sa adany, M., A. (2012). Saudi secondary school teache rs
attitudes' towards using interactive whiteboard in classrooms. The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 11 (3), 286-296.
Jang, S., J. (2010). Integrating the interactive wh iteboard and peer coaching to develop the TPACK of
secondary science teachers. Computers & Education, 55 (4), 1744–1751.

L. Mâ ță , G. Laz ăr, I. Laz ăr/ Journal of Innovation in Psychology, Education and Didactics

146 Jang, S., J., & Tsai, M., F. (2012). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and
science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards. Computers & Education, 59 , 327–338.
Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on
learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32 (3), 227–241.
Kershner, R., Mercer, N., Warwick, P., & Staarman, J., K. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard suppo rt
young children's collaborative communication and th inking in classroom science activities?
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collabo rative Learning, 5 (4), 359-383.
Laz ăr, I., M., Mâ ță , L., Ifrim, I., Mateian, C., & Laz ăr, G. (2013). Integrated Teaching And Learning
Methods In Environmental Sciences Using Interactive Ceramic Whiteboards With Integrated Sound
(Ēno) And Spark Science Learning System. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 5th Internat ional
Conference on Education and New Learning Technologi es, Barcelona, Spain.
Mercer, N., Warwick, P., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J., K. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard help to
provide ‘dialogic space’ for children's collaborati ve activity? Language and Education, 24 (5), 367-
384.
Miller, D., Averis, D., Door, V., & Glover, D. (200 5). How can the use of an interactive whiteboard
enhance the nature of teaching and learning in seco ndary mathematics and modern foreign
languages? : BECTA.
Miller, D., Glover, D., & Averis, D. (2004). Motiva tion: The Contribution of Interactive Whiteboards t o
Teaching and Learning in Mathematics, from
http://rcsdk8.edlioschool.com/pdf/technology_commit tees/iwb/IWB_MOtivation.pdf
Murcia, K. (2010). Multimodal representation in pri mary science: What’s offered by interactive whitebo ard
technology. Teaching Science, 56 (1), 23-29.
Murcia, K., & Sheffield, R. (2010). Talking about s cience in interactive whiteboard classrooms.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26 (4), 417-431.
Saban, A. (2009). Content Analysis of Turkish Studi es about the Multiple Intelligences Theory.
Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 9 (2), 859-876.
Schut, C., R. (2007). Student Perceptions of Interactive Whiteboards in a Biology Classroom. Master
Thesis, Cedarville University, Cedarville.
Serin, O., Bulut, N., B., & Saygili, G. (2009). The effect of educational technologies and material su pported
science and technology teaching on the problem solv ing skills of 5th grade primary school student.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1 , 665–670.
Shih, Y., C., Huang, P., R., Hsu, Y., C., & Chen, S ., Y. (2012). A complete understanding of disorient ation
problems in web-based learning. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technolog y, 11 (3), 1-13.

L. Mâ ță , G. Laz ăr, I. Laz ăr/ Journal of Innovation in Psychology, Education and Didactics

147 Singh, T., K., R., & Mohamed, A., R. (2012). Second ary students’ perspectives on the use of the Intera ctive
Whiteboard for teaching and learning of Science in Malaysia. Journal of Education and Practice, 3 (7),
9-14.
Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The i mpact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil
interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy S trategies. British Educational Research Journal,
32 (3), 443- 457.
Smith, H., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (200 5). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A
critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21 (2), 91-101.
Somekh, B., Haldane, M., & Jones, K. (2007). Evalua tion of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion
Project (SWEEP): Report to the Department for Educa tion and Skills. In DfES (Ed.). London:
Department for Education and Skills.
Stoica, D., Jipa, A., Miron, C., Ferener-Vari, T., & Toma, H. (2014). The Contribution of the Interact ive
Whiteboard in Teaching and Learning Physics. Romanian Reports in Physics, 66 (2), 562–573.
Stoica, D., Paragin ă, F., Paragin ă, S., Miron, C., & Jipa, A. (2011). The Interactive Whiteboard and the
Instructional Design in Teaching Physics. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15 , 3316–3321.
Swan, K., Kratcoski, A., Schenker, J., & Hooft, M. (2010). Interactive Whiteboards and Student
Achievement Interactive Whiteboards for Education and Training: Emerging Technologies and
Applications (pp. 131-143). Hershey: PA: IGI Global.
Thompson, J., & Flecknoe, M. (2003). Raising attain ment with an interactive whiteboard in Key Stage 2.
Management in Education, 17 (3), 29-33.
Torff, B., & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteb oards produce small gains in elementary students’ s elf-
reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54 , 379–383.
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). C ontent analysis and thematic analysis: Implications
for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15 (3), 398–405.
Van Lankvelt, K. (2009). Using an Interactive White board to Increase Student Engagement and
Achievement in Math Class, from https://jalinskens. wikispaces.com/file/detail/Katie+Final+Paper.doc
Van Veen, N. (2011). Interactive White Board in Phy sics Teaching; Beneficial for Physics Achievement?,
from http://kennisbank.hva.nl/document/476893.
Veselinovska, S., S. (2014). Use the Interactive Whiteboard in Teaching Biology . Paper presented at the
Technics and Informatics in Education, 5th Internat ional Conference, Faculty of Technical Sciences
Čačak.

L. Mâ ță , G. Laz ăr, I. Laz ăr/ Journal of Innovation in Psychology, Education and Didactics

148 Vetter, K. (2009). The Effect of Using an Interacti ve Whiteboard in the Classroom on Student
Participation, Action Research, from https://common s.kennesaw.edu/gpc/publications/effect-using-
interactive-white-board-classroom-student-participa tion
Warwick, P., Mercer, N., Kershner, R., & Kleine Sta arman, J. (2010). In the Mind and in the Technology :
The Vicarious Presence of the Teacher in Pupils’ Le arning of Science in Collaborative Group Activity
at the Interactive Whiteboard. Computers &Education, 55 (2), 350–362.
Wong, K., T., Goh, S., C., & Osman, R. (2013). Affo rdances of Interactive Whiteboards and Associated
Pedagogical Practices: Perspectives of Teachers of Science with Children Aged Five to Six Years. The
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 1 2 (1), 1-8.
Yang, K., T., & Wang, T., H. (2012). Interactive Wh iteBoard: Effective Interactive Teaching Strategy
Designs for Biology Teaching. In S. Kofuji (Ed.), E-Learning – Engineering, On-Job Training and
Interactive Teaching (pp. 139-156): InTech.